Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Perfectionism

[Ivan Zaigralin]

On Thursday, November 10, 2016 23:01:46 Zlatan Todoric wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 11/10/2016 09:46 PM, Ivan Zaigralin wrote:
> > Your summary of this thread could hardly be less correct. We already
> > identified at least one problem with the OS itself: the presence of the
> > stock firefox. No one is upset at Purism for putting PureOS on their
> > hardware, but we suggested a clear separation between the two fronts. As
> > John Sullivan explained, FSF cannot endorse the hardware project on the
> > account of nonfree BIOS, so they cannot endorse PureOS as long as the two
> > projects are fused within the web space the way they are. In particular, 
> > the laptop store can continue doing all the same things, like advertizing
> > PureOS and shipping it preinstalled. The inverse endorsement (PureOS ->
> > Librem) may also be possible, in a way similar to how Trisquel endorses
> > ThinkPenguin hardware.
> 
> John didn't explained that, on contrary he said that you can't judge
> PureOS regarding to hardware where it is preinstalled.

I stand by my interpretation.

> And what
> separation are we talking about - PureOS is Free, putting it on some
> other domain or whatsoever is not going to make it more Free.

No, but it would get your project approved, which is what you want, right? And 
once again, can't you see the difference between software being libre on one 
hand, and a GNU/Linux distribution being FSDG-compliant, and hence endorseable 
by FSF? PureOS may well be 100% free software, but this is but one check-list 
item on the way to FSF certification. The've made it abundantly clear over the 
years, they will not endorse projects that pedal nonfree software. If you want 
FSF to endorse the PureOS project, you must make it separate enough in their 
view (which emulates the view of most users) from the Librem project, which 
distributes nonfree software.

> Being nitpicky about wording and not about how to deliver content in
> this age (I really can't see how this website can help to any new user
> today http://ututo.org/) is obviously failing (if it isn't obvious to
> you that after 3 decades GNU/FSF are still really small and actually
> every year less and less important to average mass "attached" to
> Internet/personal devices and that ecosystem just moved on, well I can't
> ever explain it to you then).

This really is deviating from the topic, but I respectfully disagree. I thank 
"Bob" every day FSF took and kept the hardline stance, as I am convinced if 
they didn't, we would not have free laptops today. You are complaining about 
the smallness of our ecosystem, but I believe it's as large as it could be by 
now, thanks mostly to FSF's clear and firm thrust.

To elaborate, I want to compare non-free software with the addictive drugs 
which are being used to treat minor pain. Please give me a chance to draw an 
analogy. As it stands, we are living in the world where any shmoe can put out 
a drug, without any scientific testing, indeed without audit of any kind, with 
mystery contents, and as addictive as possible, and claim it cures whatever. 
And a lot of people are buying it, and they all get addicted, and they cannot 
take libre drugs anymore because the proprietary drugs are designed to prevent 
coexistence by producing deadly side-effects. And you want FSF to go easy on 
that sleaze? Do you really think being more tolerant of what the peddlers do, 
and more accepting of the poison they sell would improve things?

The public cannot switch to free, safe, and effective product because it's 
addicted to drugs designed to exploit them and trap them in the proprietary 
ecosystem, not because the free option is deficient, or its advocacy is too 
stiff. As we are leaving the analogy, we will not see a big change until 
nonfree software is against the law, just like untested drugs are against the 
law right now! All these statements about how FSF is unfriendly and 
inflexible, how it nitpicks the terminology, and how all of that ruins 
adoption, all that "criticism" sounds just like the moans of an addict. And 
even if you are not in fact an addict to nonfree software, it still sounds 
like whining, and without any merit.

Look at Munich: they passed a law, and presto, transition complete. That's the 
way to do it. Sweet-talking clueless masses ain't it, all it does is it 
dilutes the message and makes nonfree software appear more benign than it is.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.